I’m not defending this dude at all but some people just like it. My girlfriend has explicitly told me that she likes when I grab,/squeeze her neck. I’m also not a mansplaning douch though.
I feel like the guy standing over the girl at a party with his hand on the wall above her head - to show “ownership” - is even more representative of the species.
I’ve done this once or twice myself, and at the moment of accepting the invite I’m absolutely down to do it, but when it gets to the day itself sometimes it’s way too hard or I didn’t anticipate how it fits in with other events.
And if you get older, you sometimes are simply too tired. A party on Friday sounds great on Monday, but on Friday at around 5 it starts to sound really really tiring and you’d really appreciate going to bed early.
This is anecdotal but pretty much all of the lactose intolerant people I know love dairy more than the lactose tolerant people. Something as small as your body not processing milk isn’t enough to stop them
Humans: Let’s breed all these pants together to maximize production of the chemical, invent a rating system to determine which ones have the most, then hold competitions to see who can tolerate the highest levels.
Completely spitballing here based on your anecdotal observation, but I know that with lactose-intolerance, you’re lacking lactase for processing the lactose, so the lactose makes it unprocessed into the gut, where the gut microbiota then process the lactose and cause the usual symptomes.
Well, and those gut microbiota can signal to your brain that they want more of a given food (source).
So, maybe those bacteria in your gut fucking love lactose, because it is basically sugar, and so they instruct you to self-destruct.
Same. And the thing with Amazon is most of the shit I buy on there, I can’t really buy local. Computer shit especially. Used to be, we had a Fry’s that was about 2 hours away. So, far enough that it required planning and usually would wait for the weekend, which usually meant amazon would be faster anyway.
edit: just to be clear, I wish that amazon didn’t have as much utility as it does because they’re a shit company, but I kinda feel like this is the norm with just about every corp these days.
Yeah this is such a strawman argument lol. There’s lots to hate about Amazon as a company, but to act like it’s actually an inconvenient service to use is fucking stupid. And Amazon didn’t put all the small businesses out of business, Target, Walmart, and friends had already done that. At this point it’s just Amazon vs the giant retail corps, and frankly I couldnt care less who wins that battle, except that I’d love to see the final outcome be mutual annihilation (not that that’s likely)
Giving full economic power to the state does not make you less fascist. It actually makes it much worse.
Just a reminder to the true leftists who think they can force through their better society by giving society more power over the individual without changing the culture in the first place.
I’ve tried explaining to so many different people that giving ultimate power to a group of people that were raised in an environment that thinks “greed is good” is fucking dumb.
I think the point is that giving them full economic power would not make the situation better and once the politicians are solved, we wouldn’t need the economic change anyways.
Bosnia, Rwanda, and multiple acts carried out by the Janjaweed to name some of the more recent ones. Most of the other more recent ones were perpetrated by states against stateless peoples which also shouldn’t speak too kindly to your narrative.
Yes, they were trying to build a state. Building systems is a natural progression within human nature. You can try to decentralize it all you want but it just enables optimism. Anything that counts that would require centralized education, aka requiring a state to function and enforce.
When I’m talking about states, I’m especially referring to nation states, hence my focus on nationalists. Sure, you can use a very broad definition, but than “state” barely means anything.
Centralization is a core aspect of states, true. I don’t see how “centralized education” is so inevitable for you? Why not a decentralized education system that focuses more on voluntariness and empowering that on enforcement?
Last but not least: Building systems in not the same as sates building. And human nature isn’t as straight forward as it seems to be. You haven’t seen any other system in your life I assume, and neither have I. So it’s easy to think that’s just how it is. The great David Graeber once said in an interview that anthropologists have an affinity to anarchism since they know it works.
Your first step is to educate literally everyone on how a stateless society works for it to work. Next you have to convince them it will work. I’ve known a lot more anarchists than you think. If you cannot convince literally everyone to play along, anarchy fails. You’ve already failed because you cannot convince me and likely will always fail for roughly 30% of the population about any topic. Counter culture will always exist. If your system does not allow for it, you have set yourself up for failure. You have set us all up for failure.
The USSR attempted to decentralize initially and it failed miserably by their own metrics. The CCP looked at what they became and said they didn’t do it right because they centralized. They starved and then centralized planning. Now you are telling me that there’s never been an attempt. I’m good thanks.
You are actively hurting people by sabotaging liberal systems that do work in favor of radical change towards a system that has absolutely literally been tried at scale. It fails and then becomes oppressive against minorities and inefficient due to not allowing dissent.
I’m perfectly happy in a liberal mixed system where capital is owned privately and profits are shared amongst those who buy in. If you want to start an organization that shares value equally, start a co-op. Unlike anarchist systems, liberal ones allow for you to do that. Just don’t expect to use the power of the state to force it on everyone else.
Today, the whole world is divided into states but state abolismists want concepts like transformative justice that tries to undo the root of a problem, not just the symptoms.
Also: stateless doesn’t mean no order at all, but it’s about hierarchy free systems
There is an entity for keeping order. Its called a community. Everyone protects everyone because everyone knows everyone because everyone needs everyone. If you step out of line people won’t protect you.
Stateless societies existed for millennia before all the states came along and enslaved them. They had order because strong personal relationships maintain order without leaders.
Surprise: as soon as you form a community, the most dependable members become a governing core. What the fuck do you think a “village elder” is?
Also, what happens when village A decides their neighbours B don’t deserve all of their land? There’s no governing body to mediate, so village A simply attacks B.
the most dependable members become a governing core.
Yes, and that governing core does not have complete authority over the village, They are trusted members of the community and if they abuse their powers they get removed.
This is exactly the kind of order you want. The people that have put the most effort into the community naturally want what’s best for that community, and if they are trusted that means they are more likely to be kind and nice people and not greedy.
what happens when village A decides their neighbours B don’t deserve all of their land?
The best option is for village A to send a delegation to B and voice their concerns. After which village B decides what to do.
Just like people do not need to be governed, groups (in this conversation villages) do not as well. They should have enough common sense to do things peacefully because if they become hostile all the other groups band together to oppose them. The same dynamics are at play.
That it’d be great if we lived in a fluffy world of perfection, but in the real world, things aren’t quite as simple. You can never assume an actor is or even desires do be logical, nor that people will gladly behave with others’ interest at heart
What happens when the governing core says no? For this system to work, you need an almost perfect level of education and reprogramming. That same level of education and reprogramming would also theoretically solve all problems in the current system and power structure. You have the same power to help people now as you magically would under your proposed system. You just refuse to play by the same rules because you think they are rigged against you when they aren’t. You just refuse to play.
The governing core is the society. If they say no then that society changes. That is how the system works. The people decide how to live their life and if they don’t want to live a certain way they change. As long as the people stay skeptical of all authority the system works. If they don’t it collapses into a class based society.
You don’t need perfect reprogramming. You just need a couple of people who want to live this way and let them live.
Anarchism works. The systems that I am describing have been successfully implemented and work.
Anarchism does absolutely nothing to oppose oppressive systems of power but hopes and dreams. Good luck changing people’s minds when communications are restricted in non-liberal societies. Your core tenants are that you reject the power structures required to defend against them. The only difference between you and the original communist revolutions is that you reject the soviets that allowed them to organize a revolution and consolidate power.
This is not the first time I have been sent that source. Your source only proves that it can work in addition to existing power structures or at a smaller scale. If you cannot convince the majority to shift, a couple people are not going to lead a general strike which is commonly held to be a requirement for societal change towards anarchism. You are not arguing the actual ideology of anarchism.
There’s so much that anarchism fails at but ultimately its inability to sustain itself as an ideology means that it will always fail, regardless of if it could work at scale(It cannot) Thus, you are only hurting people with attempts at radical change because the only societies that allow it are liberal ones. What naturally results is opposition in the forms of fascism or a shift to actual communism and oppression. All this while less liberal societies take advantage of free peoples. It is either an unethical ideology or you are proposing it with malicious intent.
I am not against hierarchies if they are justified. The hierarchies that are democratic and non-coercive are acceptable.
Power should not be consolidated, it should be distributed among the population. Any sort of consolidation of power opens the door for people to create systems and hierarchies that maintain power unjustly.
I think that if a society is capable of working in a smaller scale it can be scaled up. Especially with the technology that we have today.
I don’t think that anarchism is unsustainable. all attempts to create anarchist societies have ended because of outside factors (invasions). I don’t see these as shortcomings of anarchism but instead as shortcomings of other systems to tolerate alternate political systems. Also if an anarchist society descends into fascism (red or otherwise) then that is because the people didn’t do enough to oppose it.
I also apologize if some of these statements are short. You can’t unbind ctrl+w to close the window on firefox and I use it to delete the last word so I accidentally deleted my previous two attempts to answer this comment.
Also I appreciate this conversation as it requires me to think through my ideology.
All societies have ended due to a combination of internal and outside factors. That is the test of a society. To claim that anarchist societies do not have internal issues is intellectually dishonest. All capitalist societies that have failed have done so due to outside factors. So too have all monarchist and communist if the true believers are to be listened to. When the USSR and the CCP started it was economically anarchist so I do not accept the claim that all anarchist systems ended due to outside factors. They also naturally consolidate.
The key difference is how much suffering is caused along the way. Anarchist society ascends into fascism so easily because it already controls the resources and is a single-party system that does not allow dissent. All the elements are there minus the natural rhetoric and for people to vote themselves a better position (tyranny of the majority). You cannot stop that. It is going to happen because it is human nature.
I honestly don’t expect to change your mind in this conversation. That’s not how it works. I was once a radical thinker. I do hope that I’ve instilled some nuggets of thought that eventually turn into a worldview that is less likely to cause harm. Very few radicals that actually implement change survive it and they tend to cause a lot of pain along the way. The rest end up in teaching.
I did not claim that anarchist societies did not have internal problems, I said that anarchist societies have ended because of external problems. Internal problems exists but they aren’t fatal. The USSR and CCP were not anarchist. The economy may have functioned anarchically for a couple of months but the people were not anarchists and the ones that took power were vanguardists (because they usurped the previous state and used it to repress the population).
Also I am interested to know how anarchy, the system that is inherently based on dissent, does not allow dissent. Anarchy is only dissent. There isn’t a single anarchist ideology. Anarchy is a way of thought that rejects the idea of conformity and it being a “single party system” is an insane thing to suggest.
The last thing I want to do is cause harm. I belie this society is possible but I do not want it implemented unless I know it can survive in a humane way. This is ideology it is the long term goals that we set for ourselves so we have something to strive for. This change should only happen if the people are ready for it. If they believe it. I think that any society that humans can imagine can exists as long as all the individuals in that society want it to.
My worldview does not cause less harm than any of the current ones. All of the points that you but forward come from the lack of faith in the system, or more accurately the people that make up the system. My ideology is based on the fact that people can be good, kind and selfless and the only thing stopping entire society from being those things is because our natural kindness gets destroyed by the current culture. I understand that this might be a naive thing to think but the world is currently ending (because of the “less harmful ideologies”) so being naive and hopeful is the best thing I can do.
I am an anarchist because It is a society build on human interaction, kindness, friendliness, acceptance and tolerance. That is what my anarchy is. people existing for the sake of their friends and neighbors. If you can show me another ideology that has all of that I am eager to listen. because those things are antithetical to capitalism, and if you remove all of the things from capitalism that make it incompatible you will end up with anarchy.
How do you define a system where decisions are made decentrally at a communal level and the owners of capital are the workers? Any serious study of early attempts at economic decentralization of the early Soviet and CCP systems should result in the conclusion that it was effectively an attempt at economic anarchy by its very definition. Just because it is not your prefered anarchy does not mean it was not anarchy.
Capitalism is compatible with kindness and, in fact, works better with it. Capitalism also allows for anarchist structures. Just because people do not throw resources at your system does not mean that it is not allowed. Any system that refuses to allow capitalist structures is one that does not allow dissent. Any anarchist system that does allow for capitalism bleeds skilled labor and capital over time. Any education system that promotes kindness and humanity is just as effective at bettering a capitalist system as it would be an anarchist one but good luck controlling the educational system with anarchist structures. We cannot even keep religious dogma out of our current ones with the strongest and most rigid structures.
Economics is the study of how best to allocate the resources within society. Anarchism does not allow for any of the economic structures that allow for resource allocation at scale. A command economy can but is inefficient the more centralized it is. Capitalism can but it is less human the larger it is. If you take out the scale of a command economy, people starve. If you make capitalist systems smaller, they become more human. There is a clearly preferred system which is smaller capitalism. That is my answer to you on a system that has all that.
Beyond the simple answer, it requires a few other things as a roadmap to get there (which Anarchism does not have in any form beyond attempts at general strikes and generally degrading the system in the hope that fascism would not be the natural response)
Promoting small businesses at the local and contractual level (Such as government requiring small business partnerships with large firms and providers)
Education on ethics and diversity
Robust public spaces with a sense of place supporting small communities (even within large cities)
Promotion of equity at the lowest levels
Increased mobility to increase labor and purchasing power over monopoly labor
More robust controls on anticompetitive business behavior beyond simple monopoly definitions
Promotion of nonprofits and other alternative corporate structures in certain industries
All of the above are interlinked and require each other to be most effective. All of them can be done in your community right now and don’t require interjection by a higher government than your local town/city.
It honestly sounds to me like you do not understand capitalism if you think there is not a human element that comes into play. Reducing suffering enables better human interaction, excess kindness, leisure time, friendliness, and absolutely requires tolerance and acceptance. An efficient system is not one that allows for discrimination based on any human factors and that would be present in any system. Tribalism is in our nature. You see it in class with how people sit and between groups when they are at odds for goals. The only thing that can affect it is education and awareness. Only after that can we talk about resourcing solutions. It sounds to me like you just want a kinder world. I recommend finding a place that supports that in your life. They do exist and it requires compassion and probably moving on your part to find them. No one is going to force it on you.
I thank you for the detailed answer. It is going to take me time to properly think about everything you have said. I will get back to you when I have finished thinking about it. You have definitely given me lots to think about and I thank you for it.
But one thing I will say is that I am talking about cultural anarchism instead of economical one. such a culture needs time to grow and a few months of economic decentralization is a god start anarchism requires a lot more than that.
EDIT: You just might have triggered a massive change in how I perceive politics. Thank You!
Okay, how to I even begin. I’m going to start with a Thank You! This comment has made me think about a lot of different aspects of my Ideology and I am genuinely grateful that your comment initiated that. Ensuring clearer understanding of my ideology is very important to me.
Let’s start with the easy response. The final statement of my previous comment was very absolute.
if you remove all of the things from capitalism that make it incompatible you will end up with anarchy.
I now see that was a mistake. What I should have said instead was that it would make it more anarchistic, and you have confirmed this by suggesting methods that I believe are anarchistic. All the steps have the purpose of lessening the power structures of current society and if I would have to think about how to transition a capitalist society into an anarchist society I imagine I would come up with similar steps.
Therefor I support this “small capitalism”. I see it as a stepping stone towards anarchism, because it is moving in the right direction. It just doesn’t go far enough. You seem to be okay with money as a concept (and maybe wage slavery unless it falls under “equity of at the lowest levels”), I am not. I think that as long as money is a necessity to live you have the means through witch you can coerce others and remove these freedoms and safeguards put in place so in the end you will have just capitalism. Cruel, unjust and uncaring capitalism.
Removing money does not prevent against this, because anarchism also requires a lot of oversight to prevent collapsing. Money is just another vector of collapse that capitalism has. Also unlike anarchism, capitalism also does not have oversight of society by all members of society. This is the cultural anarchism I am talking about. Anarchists have no representative democracy, No political laziness. Everyone has a voice and you can’t give your voice to someone else. All the individuals are collectively in charge of everything that happens in their commune, and the society is nothing more than a collection of communes.
I also believe both can coexist. Nothing about anarchism prevents collaboration with other political systems. In fact I believe that an anarchist society must have good relations with a neighboring capitalist system to survive, because otherwise the capitalists in the system have nowhere to go and will rebel, the other society functions like an overflow pipe. Also the effect works reversed as well.
Anarchism does not allow for discrimination. All forms of discrimination are antithetical to anarchism.
Also I would like to address the in anarchism capitalism is dissent argument. Is fascism dissent? or theocracy? because from an anarchist point of view all those are coercive unjust power structures, that should be dismantled. They are authoritarian and oppressive. anarchy does not allow capitalism of this. It is the same logic as the paradox of tolerance, but also I do not believe alternative systems should not be allowed to exists. as long as they respect our right to independence and self-determination I have no problem with alternate political systems existing, only if they are unreasonably oppressive (including genocidal).
I could also talk about economics but I think this comment is already long enough.
The entire first two paragraphs of your statement is exactly what the CCP and USSR attempted to set up but it failed miserably due to efficiency issues, They then consolidated in to sudo fascism. How many attempts do you need to see that people in aggregate cannot form that level of trust in society or social engagement? The majority of people do not even use their power in the current West because they do not care and are happy with the status quo.
Anarchism does not provide robust power to protect minorities so it does not matter if it does not allow discrimination, it cannot prevent it. The same level of educational and social change that you would propose under an anarchist system would solve it in any other system. There are no solid controls in place to counteract tribalism. This is actually one of my strongest held beliefs on the topic having worked in this area on the government and private sector sides.
The issue with not allowing dissent is that anarchists have never been able to force their system on society if it was not wrapped in communism. It very quickly collapses into an authoritarian regime or reversion to the status quo having hurt a lot of people in the revolution.
Don’t get me wrong, there are aspects of anarchism that do work within systems of power. Decentralization of power tends to provide a check on centralized power such as in a federal system. Private contracts (anarcho-capitalism) between people can be extremely efficient provided they are not the only form of sustenance for people. Rights backed by the higher power with no economic perverse incentives is an extremely effective form of equality and to a certain extent equity. Nonprofits provide an opportunity for people to actually support others and if we were all ready to be equal members in an anarchist society, it is all you would need and capitalism would not matter. You cannot claim that it is the owners of capital that are preventing it because they would be there in any other system, except with the power of the state or no state to stop them. If you solve them, you solve capitalism without any transition to a new system.
I talk this a lot with folks involved in higher education that conform to these ideals which is why I speak to your narratives instead of some bastardized version skewed by ignorance in a nationalist upbringing. People have not been taught what fascists, socialists, and/or anarchists actually believe so they have also forgotten the counter-narratives to them. They are susceptible to highly effective propaganda that works. Anarchists are tools used to degrade liberal democracies by fascist powers because it works. It is a playbook used countless times in the 20th century and forgotten because a liberal democracy won the so-called final war. Germany’s release of Lenin successfully knocked Russia out of the First World War and it is in Russia’s playbook right now to cause internal tensions in the West with political instability. A success on that front would not lead to a happy world but instead the next period of conflict and great power competition between totalitarian systems out of a wartime necessity just as in the great war.
I do not want an anarchist revolution that forces anarchy onto the entire society. That would not work. The people wouldn’t accept it. I want a system where anarchism can be implemented alongside other systems so everyone, me included, can find their spot, their best way to live. I do not think everyone is an anarchist, and can live in an anarchist system. People have different values and those values impact their politics. I just want a space where anarchy can exist without being destroyed. If a person is fine working 9-5 for 5 days a week for just enough money to pay rent, buy food and maybe sometimes some clothes then that’s fine. I would rather die.
The entire first two paragraphs of your statement is exactly what the CCP and USSR attempted to set up but it failed miserably due to efficiency issues, They then consolidated in to sudo fascism. How many attempts do you need to see that people in aggregate cannot form that level of trust in society or social engagement?
I do not believe that’s what the USSR was trying to do, but because I wasn’t there I cannot say for certain. All I can say is that if they did try to do it they failed to stop authoritarians getting to power and that was on them, not on the ideology. If you try to force a bunch of people who do not care about running their own lives and give them the power to run their own lives they will walk up to the first person telling them what to do and mindlessly do it. This is why an anarchist revolution has to be cultural as well as political. People need to want it, otherwise they won’t get it.
A hundred years have past since then. Humanity has gone from an agrarian society to a post-industrial (robots) society. I think the circumstances have changed enough to make any assumptions based on past revolutions inaccurate.
Anarchism does not provide robust power to protect minorities so it does not matter if it does not allow discrimination, it cannot prevent it
The community prevents it. If someone is acting like a dick people come together and deal with it. Together. Anarchism does not provide this power because it is up to the community to decide how it works.
It was what they were trying to do because the basis of communism is the commune. The USSR originally started out as a decentralized organization of communes and it did not work at scale.
What you describe as wanting literally exists in western society. There are communes all over and they fail all the time or simply survive chugging along as is. Maybe you should go live on one and see if you like it. I mean that as sincerely as possible.
Decentralization in true left states results in starvation every single time. Centralization results in oppression. The USSR and the CCP went through each of these phases but almost every smaller example does too. The negative relations between the USSR and the CCP even started out as a disagreement around the USSR not following true decentralization until the starvation started.
I don’t know what to tell you other than the fact that it has been tried. It is not a matter of states failing to follow Karl Marx’ best guidance around decentralization. It fails that quickly.
For context: OP is on lemmy.world which blocks the tankie instances if I’m not mistaken. So they seem to refer to based leftist stuff I assume and isn’t a redfash.
The true marxist based left is not woke. It never was. There’s a reason that the western left turned liberal in the 50s and 60s and focused on reform. The CCP killed any thought that decentralized communes could be self-sufficient and centralization killed any concept of liberalism and a responsive command economy. If the majority can vote their way into resources, minorities suffer. With no opposition checking the ruling party, corruption sets in.
If you are referring to the American Democratic party, they are liberal and not left.
This is correct. They draw a distinction between economic left and social left. Mainly, US liberals are vaguely socialist and definitely not communist, but mainly, they embrace ID politics. People who call themselves leftists may hold the same opinions about equality, but consider the economic system and classes much more important.
Most statements I don’t have qualms with, but from my understanding, “liberals embrace ID politics” seems way off. I could see an argument that there’s some kind of split across people who’d identify as or match a typical understanding of a liberal, along the ID politics line, given that it’s so divisive. Id say liberal as a concept existed way before ID politics, do when that became prominent, a lot of people got split along that line. I.e. Far right probably split 90:10, Conservatives probably split 75:25, Liberals probably split closer to 50:50, while social left split 25:75, far left split 10:90 and libertarians split 1:99.
There is a tradition of leftist critics of Marxism. I don’t agree with each 100% but you can draw a line from Bakunin to Kropotkin to Goldman to Weil to Orwell, … each in opposition of Marx or Lenin or Stalin
Socialist policies are the obvious answer to health, education, justice and transport issues in society.
Sure, as long everything is implemented as insurances and not government services.
People with the need should be in control of how to satisfy that need, because politicians and bureaucrats DO NOT know better. Always remember, someone should come up losing something whenever a need is not met.
The politicians and bureaucrats don’t know better, which is why people tell them what paths we should take as a society. Then when organizations are funded by public dollars they hire experts in the relevant fields. If the public were to take over healthcare for example, experts in healthcare policy would be hired to consult on how to overhaul the medical industry.
The reason we don’t have more of them is because people continually vote against their own self interest.
Louder for those in the back!!!
I will never understand WHY people do this. And then higher life expectancy resulting in a growing older generation population preferring policies that actively harm young people
(Actual queation): Why would you say its in my self-interest to vote for a left party (which would generally mean paying even more that the current 45% income taxes)?
Laughable you’d level this as a criticism of the left considering MAGA republicans are waging all out war for control of the conservative party in America against more traditional republicans.
Why is it laughable? It seems pretty obvious that one of the main reasons why conservatives are still successful in the US is that they're able to unite much more than the left. I'm too lazy to go find sources, but there are multiple sociological studies that confirmed this - despite craziness like Trump and before that Tea party and other shit, the left has been considerably more fragmented the whole time.
If it were true that leftists could never organise to decide a course of action how do you explain the rampant success of workers unions?
I don’t doubt that conservatives are more likely to just ‘follow the leader’ (I’ve read similar as well) but to say the left is ineffectual because of internal divisions is laughable given the very public and concerning division in the Republican Party right now.
You’ve had plenty of time to elaborate on your claims of the “rampant success of workers unions” and your answer is “Google it”?
No. This is unacceptable. You tell me what you believe is evidence of the “rampant success of workers unions” or concede that there hasn’t been anything approaching "rampant success of workers unions"in quite some time.
The right might begin to become divided soon, but so far it definitely has not. Regarding worker unions (and the research I mentioned), I'm talking about the modern day, last 20-30 years or so, even though there's been a lot of fragmentation historically as well. There are no real leftist parties in my country with any success either because of the same thing, endless fragmentation, purity tests and ignoring the fact that actual workers are not socially progressive.
Neither of the two parties in the United States of America are actually left. Republicans are far right, Democrats are liberal and in the middle of the left/right spectrum.
That’s not what fascist means. Fascism is specific a right wing ideology, because it involves close cooperation between the government and capitalist monopolies. Mussolini praised “capitalist production, captains of industries, modern entrepreneurs. You seem to mean authoritarian.
I understand the definition of fascism. You are missing the portion by which corporations are not allowed to exist if they do not further the efforts of the state. Basically exactly the same as Marx advised towards the end of his writings. Nothing is allowed to exist in a socialist system if it is perceived to work against the needs of the people (state)
There is functionally no difference between corporations that do not control the means of production even if they are charged with running it and a state fully owning the means. It’s just middle management.
A socialist system doesn’t have to be state-based. Socialism can encompass anarchism, anarcho-communism and many other left ideologies besides state-communism.
Just like the Soviets and CCP attempted to do before they learned how poor decentralized planning was without incentives. The CCP literally complained about how the Soviet Union wasn’t following the true path of decentralized communes as their people starved. This is literally history. You can argue all you want about how what the Soviet Union and CCP became wasn’t true anarchism but they literally tried it initially and it failed miserably.
Even Karl Marx said that his intent was more of a direction than blueprints because he didn’t have it all figured out. He also said that allowing opposition parties couldn’t be allowed within any socialist system which cements the concentration of power and eventually consultation.
All this is why the Western left turned to liberal reform approaches in the 50s.
Fascism includes various types of oppression not present in other ideologies, such as sexism and manipulation/fear about minority groups as ‘the enemy’.
That is a result of the perception that those groups work against the state, not a requirement for fascism. Communist systems have just as bad if not worse a track record in regards to minority oppression as fascist ones.
I am sure that is why the Ukrainians starved during the Holodomor and the Russians did not. The tyranny of the majority still exists. It becomes far worse in a less efficient system with no economic outs for the state oppressed.
Communism is the exact opposite of egalitarianism. It puts more power into the hands of those who control the government/decision making. There is nothing inherently less prejudiced about said government than any other but it does provide a documented incentive to oppress the opposition and the ultimate economic means to do so.
Theoretically, a liberal economic order with the only central government mandate being protections for equality and justice is the only truly egalitarian solution that is not fascism.
The examples I mentioned were minorities within their current societies. Socialism didn’t prevent Stalin from banning abortion in 1939. Socialism is not inherently better for women’s rights. It does provide more state power which means changes, good and bad can be more thoroughly implemented. This sometimes results in more thoroughly implemented social policy but often results in more effective genocide or no recourse for the oppressed at all.
You’ve been so scared of this communism boogeyman that you’ve allowed yourself to be convinced anything that supports your commu(nity) is bad and oppressive. Meanwhile you have absolutely no means of building yourself out of any issue that may arise further down the line.
"Derrrrr I’m so glad we don’t have any oppressive Healthcare system built that can be controlled by them demon-crats! "
-guy who pays more taxes to their Healthcare system than almost any other country and receives NO benefits from it.
Government provided healthcare is not inherently communist or socialist. I’m not the moron here. You aren’t even talking on close to the same level. Also, the American Democratic party is not left. Not even close.
Nobody gives a shit about the size of your junk. The point is that the sort of person who would buy an american pickup truck is so insecure, they want to overcompensate what they perceive as being an obvious flaw.
Rather, you perceive that as their reasoning without even looking at their penis for confirmation. Freud has been largely discredited, a lot has changed since he died in 1939, almost 100yr ago, he isn’t necessarily correct on this one (in fact, since he was wrong about almost everything, it’s more likely that he wasn’t correct.)
The reason I say this is that I've been following them for something like 15+ years by this point, and they haven't made any perceptible progress in that time. They're at exactly the same point now where they were 15 years ago.
Anyway, Linux memes should be about Linux, not Windows. It is almost like those Linuxians are jealous Windows has a ginormous market share while their respective distro does not.
So you agree that it’s jealousy that the entire world uses windows and not linux? It’s the 23rd Year of the linux desktop in a row. “Uhhhhhh but my servers…” Nobody cares. Nobody wants to get rid of Debian and RHEL. Nobody wants to use them as a Desktop.
I dunno dude. 4 Billion People use computers and millions of users spread over several distributions is not a lot.
And with the amount of gatekeeping and arguing over what is and isnt the best i would also stay far away if i didnt administer servers. Even then i use windows most of the time.
A good chunk of that 4 billion have never used anything aside from a phone as a computing device. If you widdle that number down to only desktop users the Linux marketshare jumps to about 5%.
I really wanted to be right about this and checked what i follishly spat out as fact.
Linuxs market share is about 8%, i am going to add others to linux for good measure, because it probalby is in some way.
So yeah, you’re right.
But that is still a tiny fraction compared to Windows with a not really trustworthy 74%
I forgot what the argument was about and at this point it doesnt really matter anymore. Linux users be talking about Windows a lot. Happens.
Even 3% is not insignificant. Especially when you consider that most computers come with Windows pre-installed. Imagine how that would change if Linux came pre-installed.
And those numbers really start to skew in favor of Linux when you exclude markets like China. IIRC when you exclude China for desktop marketshare stats Linux alone (not including “other”) jumps closer to 10%.
The 30% of all operation systems, which only gets beaten by Android.
funny you mention that, wanna know what you get if you look at the Kernel running underneath Android? Oh would you look at that, it’s actually Linux…
I do agree on the weird obsession with hating windows but lack of market share is not the reason it happens, it’s probably more due to people leaving Windows in the first place because they were immensely unsatisfied with it (Unlike Windows or Mac there are very few Linux Pre-Built PCs out there so chances are any given Linux Desktop User actively decided on that choice) and are now just hung up and bashing on it.
Without Linux the whole world would litetally not run. I don’t fucking care what some consumers jack of on which OS. I care what runs literally our complete infrastructure.
Which car does use Windows or Mac? Which super Computer does that? Which Important Server does that? None, literally.
Yes, I wanted to go against his “we as Linux users are jealous about Windows because of marketshare” which I tried to defeat because I literally am not jealous for given reasons.
From the Dutch who would sell shares of the profit they were going to make before a voyage. Very different from the norm at the time when usually a monarch or noble would fund such projects. I personally think it’s a very good spot in history to think of the beginning of capitalism
Investing money in someone to start a business because you believed that business would be worth it in the end happened way earlier though.
That’s just more abstract as the final value you can receiv isn’t capped anymore - but just having a loan-based economic model is already pretty capitalistic tbh.
But I see how what was basically the creation of stocks can also be seen as a starting point
I’ve seen an interesting video about it a few months ago: 400 years ago is actually mercantilism. It means people build their fortune out of selling goods. Before that, it was about possessing lands and taxing the people who lived there.
Capitalism is different than both. It’s not born 400 years ago with the trading with the America. It’s born with the industrial revolution when the bourgeoisie seized the power with democracy.
The shocking thing is as you learn about mercantilism you learn that so many rich people seem to actually believe in Mercantilism rather than Capitalism. A big part of Mercantilism was the idea that all deals have a winner and a loser, and that no financial deal can be mutually beneficial. It encourages tribalism, and ruthless cutthroat competition between countries, and it encourages really predatory financial agreements between parties. If you’re making a financial transaction and know that the one party is going to be screwed over by it, you might as well screw over the other party as much as you can get away with to ensure you’re the winner and not the loser.
I guess capitalism can be seen as an extension of mercantilism, but now they don’t only trade goods but everything they can. They’re the same people so the ruthless cutthroat part would merely be their original philosophy.
I think the basis for capitalism is actually that the price of a product or labor is set by the market. It probably “started” the first time Gork traded Thmm a spear for 3 shiny rocks.
This meme doesn’t work, because in the scene the image comes from, we have every reason to believe Ron Swanson actually does know more than the employee at the hardware store.
TBF I wouldn’t be surprised if survivors of a collapsed dictatorship didn’t know much about the definition, theories, or philosophies of Communism. Stalin isn’t “the working people” and therefor his seizure of the means of production was not communism.
Alright, so I’m studying to be a counselor, and one of the methods they taught us about using with little kids was called sand tray therapy. It’s where you put toys/dolls/objects in a small sandbox and ask the kids to tell a story with them. The idea is that they might not have the right words yet, but they can communicate ideas and emotions more easily in pretend play. Anyway, they show us a video of this little girl setting up a doll for her dad, her dad’s new girlfriend, and herself. The therapist asks her what would the scene be like if it were perfect…the little girl flicks her finger to knock the new girlfriend face down in the sand and walks off holding her dad’s hand; leaving the new girlfriend behind. And in that moment, I understood the power of sand tray therapy.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.